GAMBIA-L Archives

The Gambia and Related Issues Mailing List

GAMBIA-L@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Ahmad Scattred <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
The Gambia and related-issues mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:37:39 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (55 lines)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEWS FROM THE COURTS


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jobe v. INS, First Circuit

In this case, the court ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to reopen
his deportation proceedings.

Sulay Jobe, a native of Gambia, entered the US as a business visitor in
1994.  He overstayed his visa, and in 1996 was placed in deportation
proceedings.  He failed to appear for the deportation hearing and was
deported in absentia.  He tried to file a motion to reopen the proceedings,
but because it was filed more than 180 days after the order, the Immigration
Judge dismissed it as not timely filed.

Jobe appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, arguing that ineffective
assistance of counsel caused him both to miss the deportation hearing and to
not file the motion to reopen within the 180-day period.  The Board
dismissed the appeal, finding that Jobe did not establish the exceptional
circumstances necessary for an exception to the 180-day rule.  Jobe then
appealed to the First Circuit, which granted his appeal, finding that
because he was unaware of the deportation order, the 180-day rule should be
tolled for that period.  However, the INS requested a rehearing by the
entire Circuit, which resulted in the current decision.

On rehearing, the INS argued that the 180-day rule was a jurisdictional
element and therefore not subject to tolling.  The court, while finding this
argument persuasive, declined to rule on it, instead finding that Jobe had
failed to present evidence that the application of the 180-day rule violated
his due process rights.  There was evidence in the record that Jobe knew
that some action was being taken on his case, but that he failed to contact
an attorney for more than six months.  In the court’s opinion, his failure
to diligently protect his rights meant that his ineffective assistance of
counsel claim was without merit.

The opinion is available online at
http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/cases/2001,0201-Jobe.shtm



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2